User talk:70.24.70.2

Paul Rouleau
The use of opinion columns is insufficient to support the content you're adding. At a minimum, opinion columns must be attributed to the columnist, and extrapolating one person's column to say "many Canadians" hold those views violates the neutral point of view policy. This is an encyclopedia article, not a forum to express your displeasure with the subject. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine be difficult, i cited an non opinion news source that states verbatim the same thing because your panties got in a twist. We done here? https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-emergencies-act-inquiry-commissioner-not-related-to-justin-trudeau-1.6280633 70.24.70.2 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also how can you objectively establish when something is controversial without it being opinion. Seriously. What metric do you use when you say something is "controversial" in any article? 70.24.70.2 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the text using the sources you provided. Please read it to see how WP:NPOV is applied. Most of the text you added wasn't supported by any of those sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything i added was supported by those sources stop trying to put lipstick on a pig and just say Conflict of Interest like a man. Rouleau was a member of John Turners Cabinet. He knew Pierre Trudeau, he knew his son, he was literally appointed as a judge in 2002 by Jean Chretien (who also worked for Turner and Trudeau). What is difficult to understand that this man had close life long ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and Justin Trudeaus Family. 70.24.70.2 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which source supports "shocked many Canadians"? Which source supports "he never even bothered to read the Federal Liberal's legal opinion"? Which source supports "blocked release of legal opinion on that via redaction"? Which source supports "led many to speculate the inquiry results were pre-determined" or "to protect Justin Trudeau's government from accountability"? There is no language in any of your sources that verifies the claims that you added. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Your recent editing history at Paul Rouleau shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Paul Rouleau. You are free to make well-referenced, neutral Edit requests at Talk: Paul Rouleau. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)